I don't think this is a bug. I do not expect to be able to unfold a definition without some syntactic issues. For example,
two = 1+1 four = 2 * two but unfolding fails (four = 2 * 1 + 1). In general, we expect to have to parenthesize things when unfolding them. John On Feb 13, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Simon Marlow wrote: > On 09/02/10 21:43, S. Doaitse Swierstra wrote: >> One we start discussing syntax again it might be a good occasion to >> reformulate/make more precise a few points. >> >> The following program is accepted by the Utrecht Haskell Compiler (here >> we took great effort to follow the report closely ;-} instead of >> spending our time on n+k patterns), but not by the GHC and Hugs. >> >> module Main where >> >> -- this is a (rather elaborate) definition of the number 1 >> one = let x=1 in x >> >> -- this is a definition of the successor function using section notation >> increment = ( one + ) >> >> -- but if we now unfold the definition of one we get a parser error in GHC >> increment' = ( let x=1 in x + ) > > Now that *is* an interesting example. I had no idea we had a bug in that > area. Seems to me that it ought to be possible to fix it by refactoring the > grammar, but I haven't tried yet. > > Are there any more of these that you know about? > > Cheers, > Simon > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
